Mark W. wrote: > > - IDEA: Make spells be objects. One object for each spell > you know. [...] > In the above example, since all spells are just archetypes, > tuning them is just a matter of changing the archetype, not > a configuration file. > > If the code is abstract enough, it means that new spells are > just a matter of modifying the arch on the map. [...] Spells being objects sounds cool, but I don't think it really is the big hit. o Above all, it's a big amount of work and it's gonna blow up and complexify the spell code. o Spell-objects won't make life any more simple for mapmakers. Okay, the "sp"-values will be gone - but I bet the spell-objects will again have a hundred attributes that no one ever truely understands. o With spell-objects, spells can be modiefied in the maps. Maybe that's just me, but I think spells should be standards. There should be a finite amount of spells, so that players can learn how they work and what to expect of them. That keeps the game more simple and a lot more intuitive. Is it really good to have hundred different versions of the fireball spell? I think not. Now if spells are standards (instead of objects), they should still be fine-tuned and balanced. The perfect combination of damage, speed and duration is often hard to find. Therefore, the "spellbook"-approach by David Delbecq seems like a useful thing to me. Certainly, I do agree that he should have asked on cf-devel before doing all the work. But at least, he asked before doing a cvs commit. That's already quite good, isn't it? ;-) Andreas V.